Category Archives: censorship

Twitter Source Leaks Internal Slack Channel Reconfirming Shadowbanning is Real (VIDEO)

Cristina Laila
April 27, 2022

A Twitter source leaked an internal slack channel reconfirming shadowbanning is indeed real.

Twitter executives have used Orwellian doublespeak to explain their ‘Terms of Service’ and how they moderate content on their platform.

In 2018, Project Veritas released an undercover video showing Twitter engineers bragging about how they target pro-Trump accounts by banning them or hiding their content.

  • Steven Pierre, Twitter engineer explains “shadow banning,” says “it’s going to ban a way of talking”
  • Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu on shadow banning: “they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it”
  • Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai explains banning process: “if it was a pro-Trump thing and I’m anti-Trump… I banned his whole account… it’s at your discretion”

Twitter responded to Project Veritas’ video back in 2018 and said they ‘do not shadowban accounts.’

A Twitter source leaked an internal slack channel confirming that Twitter does indeed shadowban accounts.

WATCH:

Will Elon Musk Keep Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Executive Who Led the Company’s Censoring and Banning of Patriotic Americans?

Joe Hoft
April 27, 2022

Will Elon Musk keep the top person at Twitter who censored and banned conservatives on the Big Tech giant once he takes over?  

Vijaya Gadde is responsible for the censorship and banning policies at Twitter.  She is famous for this and apparently took great pride in it.  In her role she allows the Ayatollah of Iran to promote hate speech on the platform but she took down the account of the leader of the free world, President Donald Trump.

Ms. Gadde through her actions has little regard for the first amendment in the US Constitution which protects free speech.  The far-left Democrat Party and communists around the world praise her work.  She took down Trump – the biggest and best Twitter user in history – because she and her top management colleagues just didn’t like him.  She didn’t hide it.

Vijaya tweeted openly about President Trump who beat the corrupt Clinton and Obama machines and made America prosperous and the world safe again.  But she didn’t like him and those who supported him.

Breitbart noted:

Writing for the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post in 2015, Gadde argued that certain users were trying to “silence discourse in the name of free expression.”

“I’m often inspired by the vigorous debates on controversial issues that occur on Twitter, but I’ve also been seriously troubled by the plight of some of our users who are completely overwhelmed by those who are trying to silence healthy discourse in the name of free expression,” she wrote.

As Breitbart News previously profiled, Gadde has a history of donating to Democrats and even publicly defended Yoel Roth, a Twitter official responsible for fact-checking policy, when he called members of the Trump administration “Nazis.”

“No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement actions,” she said. “We are a team with different points of view and we stand behind our people and our decisions to protect the health of the public conversation on our platform.”

Far-left Politico reported on Gadde’s response to Musk’s purchase of Twitter:

Shortly after billionaire Elon Musk bought the powerful social media platform, top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde called a virtual meeting with the policy and legal teams she oversees to discuss what the new ownership could mean for them.

Gadde cried during the meeting as she expressed concerns about how the company could change, according to three people familiar with the meeting. She acknowledged that there are significant uncertainties about what the company will look like under Musk’s leadership.

Twitter spokesperson Trenton Kennedy said Gadde became emotional when discussing her team’s impact and the pride she feels in them.

Under Gadde’s tenure, Twitter got further and further left, eventually banning the President of the United States.  When confronted on Twitter’s rules that go against US free speech law three years ago, Gadde ignored the fact that Twitter was a US company and instead claimed its users were global.   This appeared to be the justification for banning conservatives on the site.

Ms. Gadde was behind the company’s policies that banned huge numbers of conservatives. President Trump was banned because Twitter determined that the President was behind the violence at the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. Yet, the site took down the President’s tweet condemning the violence and telling people to go home.

When others shared documents from Hunter’s laptop they were banned claiming this was basically Hunter’s material and therefore the person sharing the material needed to obtain his approval before sharing, totally discounting the fact that Hunter lost that ownership when he signed a contract with a PC repairman.

Americans hope and pray that the company under Elon Musk addresses Twitter’s bias and protects free speech while censoring Twitter’s bias.

Elon Musk Called Twitter’s Banning of NY Post’s Reporting of Hunter Biden’s Laptop “Obviously Incredibly Inappropriate” – It Was When Twitter Banned TGP Too

Joe Hoft
April 27, 2022

On Tuesday Elon Musk opined on Twitter’s banning of the New York Post’s reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Musk labeled the actions “obviously incredibly inappropriate”.

The New York Post released stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop back in October 2020 several days before the election.  Twitter banned The New York Post at the time for their reporting on crackhead Hunter and his illegal dealings.  The information came straight from his own laptop.  TGP’s Joe Hoft also released solid reports on Hunter Biden’s laptop and his account was suspended.

Not only was Joe Hoft’s account suspended but many of our readers who Tweeted our stories had their accounts suspended on Twitter AND Facebook.

The Gateway Pundit’s account was later shut down for questioning the stolen 2020 Election results.

Another Gateway Pundit’s Editor’s account was banned for tweeting about Twitter’s censorship back in 2018.

All of this was wrong.  All of it.  Twitter banned our accounts, suspended our accounts, and threatened people who posted our factual reports on the Biden family corruption on their platforms. It all was obviously incredibly inappropriate.  We hope and pray this soon ends and free speech is given its proper place on the Twitter platform. 

Robert Reich: Former Trilateral Commission Member Goes Full Anti-Free Speech

Legal icon Jonathan Turley takes Robert Reich to task on his anti-free speech screed. Reich is a prominent, former member of the Trilateral Commission. An academic, he has floated in and out of government for 45 years and was named by Time magazine as one of the “Ten Best Cabinet Members” of the century in 2008. — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood

By: Jonathan Turley

We recently discussed the gathering of Democratic politicians and media figures at the University of Chicago to discuss how to better shape news, combat “disinformation,” and reeducate those with conservative views. The political and media elite shared ideas on how to expand censorship and control what people read or viewed in the news. The same figures are now alarmed that Elon Musk could gain greater influence over Twitter and, perish the thought, restore free speech protections to the site. The latest is former labor secretary under President Clinton, Robert Reich, who wrote a perfectly Orwellian column in the Guardian titled “Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense.” However, the column offers an insight into the anti-free speech mentality that has taken hold of the Democratic party and the mainstream media.

Musk is an advocate for free speech on the Internet. Like some of us, he is an Internet originalist. That makes him an existential threat for those who have long used “disinformation” as an excuse to silence dissenting views in the media and on social media.

Twitter has gone from denial of seeking to shape speech on the Internet to embracing that function. After the old Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was criticized for his massive censorship efforts, Twitter replaced him with CEO Parag Agrawal who has expressed chilling anti-free speech sentiments. In an interview with Technology Review editor-in-chief Gideon Lichfield, he was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment.  Agrawal responded;

“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.

One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention.”

He added that Twitter would be “moving towards how we recommend content and … how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”

Reich lays that agenda bare in his column while condemning free speech advocates as petty tyrants oppressing people through freedom.

Reich explains that it is not about freedom but tyranny. More free speech means less freedom. It is the type of argument commonly used in China and other authoritarian nations–and an increasing number of American academics and writers. Indeed, his column is reminiscent of the professors who have called for the adoption of the Chinese model for censoring views on the Internet.

In an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

Reich tells people not to be lured by freedom of speech: “Musk says he wants to ‘free’ the internet. But what he really aims to do is make it even less accountable than it is now.” What Reich refers to as “accountability” is being accountable to those like himself who can filter out views and writings that are deemed harmful for readers.

Reich then goes full Orwellian:

“Musk advocates free speech but in reality it’s just about power. Power compelled Musk to buy $2.64bn of Twitter stock, making him the largest individual shareholder.”

Reich insists that censorship of views like former President Donald Trump are “necessary to protect American democracy.” Get it? Less freedom is more freedom.

Read full story here…

Room Erupts When Elon Musk Gives 2-Word Answer About His Next Move

Martin Walsh
April 15, 2022

Tesla CEO Elon Musk gave a simple response when asked about whether he has a “plan B” option for Twitter.

During a TED talk, host Chris Anderson asked Musk if there was a “Plan B” if his current offer to buy Twitter in an all-cash deal were rejected.

“There is,” Musk said.

“Well, I think we would want to err on — if in doubt, let the speech — let it exist. If it’s a gray area, I would say let the tweet exist. But obviously, in a case where there’s perhaps a lot of controversies that you would not want to necessarily promote that tweet, you know. So, I’m not — I’m not saying that I have all the answers here, but I do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things and have — just be very cautious with permanent bans. You know, timeouts, I think, are better than sort of permanent bans,” he continued.

“But just in general, like it said, it won’t be perfect, but I think we wanted to really have like the perception and reality that speech is as free and reasonably possible, and a good sign as to whether there is free speech is, is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? And if that is the case, then we have free speech. And it’s damn annoying when someone you don’t like says something you don’t like. That is a sign of a healthy, functioning free speech situation,” he added.

WATCH:

On Wednesday, Musk announced that he had formally offered to buy Twitter outright.

Musk offered to buy the company for $54.20 a share, which he said was his “best and final offer,” representing a 54 percent premium over the day before he began investing in the company in late January. It would value the company at about $43 billion.

Musk said “I don’t have confidence in management” and that he couldn’t make the changes he wanted in the public market.

In a letter to Twitter, Musk said that he believes the company “will neither thrive nor serve [its free speech] societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.”

“If the deal doesn’t work, given that I don’t have confidence in management nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder,” he said.

Musk has hired Morgan Stanley as an advisor to help with the takeover of the social media giant.

Days ago, it was speculated that his decision not to take the job means he is now free to improve his position within the company, as in, buy more stock.

Musk signed an agreement with Twitter for the following terms as long as he serves on the board: “Mr. Musk agrees that, for so long as Mr. Musk is serving on the Board and for 90 days thereafter, Mr. Musk will not, either alone or as a member of a group, become the beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of Company’s common stock outstanding at such time, including for these purposes economic exposure through derivative securities, swaps or hedging transactions.”

But since Musk declined to join Twitter’s board, he is no longer bound by that stipulation, journalist Yashar Ali noted.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal said in a statement released Sunday night that it was Musk’s decision to not join the company’s board after he was offered a seat.

“Elon Musk has decided not to join our board,” Agrawal said. “The Board and I had many discussions about Elon joining the board, and with Elon directly. We were excited to collaborate and clear about the risks. We also believed that having Elon as a fiduciary of the company where he, like all board members, has to act in the best interests of the company and all our shareholders, was the best path forward. The board offered him a seat.”

“We announced on Tuesday that Elon would be appointed to the Board contingent on a background check and formal acceptance,” Agrawal continued. “Elon’s appointment to the board was to become officially effective 4/9, but Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the board. I believe this is for the best.

“We have and will always value input from our shareholders whether they are on our Board or not. Elon is our biggest shareholder and we will remain open to his input,” Agrawal added.

“There will be distractions ahead, but our goals and priorities remain unchanged,” the statement added. “The decisions we make and how we execute are in our hands, no one else’s. Let’s tune out the noise, and stay focused on the work and what we’re building.”

Oops: WaPo Tries to Start War with Musk, But Everything Goes Bad When People Notice What Got Printed

Mike Landry, The Western Journal
April 12, 2022

“Democracy Dies in Darkness,” says the mast of The Washington Post.

And the Posties say it with a straight face, despite the publication’s ownership by one of the czars of knowledge, commerce and all other things extant and of importance, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.

The Post pages recently dripped with irony as an op-ed contributor called for regulation “to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.”

That’s what the Post said, or at least that’s what Ellen K. Pao wrote in Friday’s edition of a newspaper owned by one of the wealthiest human beings on the planet.

Ah, you can’t make this stuff up.

Pao, a tech investor, was addressing the big purchase of Twitter stock by Tesla’s Elon Musk and Musk’s critical view of Twitter’s practices of censorship — censorship that has included booting a then-sitting president of the United States, Donald Trump, off the platform in January 2021.

Pao is not amused.

“For those of us who care about equity and accountability, Musk’s appointment to such a prominent role at a platform that serves hundreds of millions of users daily is highly disconcerting — a slap in the face, even,” she wrote.

Pao has her equity bona fides. She and six other women founded Project Include, aimed at diversity and inclusion in the high-tech industry.

And she has the scars from her battles in Silicon Valley. In 2012 she filed a discrimination suit against her employer Kleiner Perkins after its top executives, including a man who mentored her, deemed her unqualified for promotion.

She sued, claiming retaliation from a junior partner with whom she was romantically involved.

And she’s alarmed that Musk believes Twitter should be less restrictive on “speech that many see as hateful, abusive or dangerous.”

She gave examples — Musk shows “very little empathy” in his tweets, is insulting, and posted, then deleted, a tweet comparing Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, to Adolph Hitler.

Critical of Musk’s claim to be “a free-speech absolutist,” Pao said private platforms should not allow everything to be published.

Teenage girls have been harmed by postings on Facebook, she wrote, and former CEOs of Twitter have expressed regret for what they have allowed to be posted on their platforms.

Of course, because Pao’s argument is ultimately against the peskiness of free speech and its attendant First Amendment, to bolster her position she must provide some direct and indirect ad hominem attacks against Musk.

There is rampant sexism and racism at Tesla, she said, citing some court cases against the company.

That’s proof, according to Pao, that Musk should be nowhere near social media.

“There are clearly dangers to creating workplaces in which people feel free to say and do things that demean their co-workers,” she said. “There are dangers to abetting such abuse on social media platforms, too.”

In addition, Pao wrote “Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.

“For starters, we need consistent definitions of harassment and of content that violates personal privacy.”

On Sunday night, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal announced Musk would not be joining the Twitter board after all.

Pao said that without regulation of social media, people will continue to be harmed, especially “those who have been harmed for centuries — women and members of marginalized racial and ethnic groups.

“The people who benefit from unrestricted amplification of their views will also be the same people who have benefited from that privilege for centuries,” she concluded.

So is that the real gripe of Pao, daughter of Taiwanese immigrants — Musk is a white man; guys like that must be censored?

No one advocates absolute freedom in media.

U.S. laws have done a good job of providing limits regarding libel, slander, calls for violence and pornography.

Pao can be commended for when, as a temporary CEO of Reddit, she banned revenge porn from that platform, prompting other platforms to follow her lead.

But traditions following court cases surrounding the First Amendment have provided adequate protections against media abuse while recognizing the importance of the free exchange of ideas.

That free exchange remains something that individuals like Ellen Pao — and all of Silicon Valley — must be kept from limiting or destroying.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

1,100+ Banned Books Across 26 States: Report Shows “Shocking” Censorship

By Jake Johnson

A report published Thursday by the free expression group PEN America details an “alarming” and unprecedented surge in book banning across the United States, with 86 school districts in 26 states prohibiting more than 1,100 titles in classrooms and libraries over just the past eight months.

Titled Banned in the USA, the report finds that districts representing 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of more than 2 million students banned 1,145 unique book titles by 874 different authors, 198 illustrators, and nine translators between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022.

In total, the new report documents 1,586 instances of individual books being banned as a right-wing censorship campaign and broader war on public education sweeps the country, prompting pushback from libraries, students, and local residents. Some book bans have been reversed in recent months thanks to student resistance.

The top three banned titles, according to PEN America’s analysis, are “centered on LGBTQ+ individuals or touch on the topic of same-sex relationships: Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe banned in 30 districts, All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson, banned in 21 districts, and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison, banned in 16 districts.”

Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Pérez, a love story between a Black teenage boy and a Mexican-American girl set in 1930s Texas, was also banned in 16 districts,” the report notes. “The Bluest Eye by the late Nobel Prize laureate Toni Morrison is the fifth most banned book, in 12 districts.”

PEN compiled a list of the books subject to bans here.

Jonathan Friedman, director of PEN America’s Free Expression and Education program and lead author of the report, said in a statement Thursday that “book challenges in American schools are nothing new, but this type of data has never been tallied and quite frankly the results are shocking.”

“Challenges to books, specifically books by non-white male authors, are happening at the highest rates we’ve ever seen,” said Friedman. “What is happening in this country in terms of banning books in schools is unparalleled in its frequency, intensity, and success.”

“Because of the tactics of censors and the politicization of books we are seeing the same books removed across state lines: books about race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and sex most often,” Friedman continued. “This is an orchestrated attack on books whose subjects only recently gained a foothold on school library shelves and in classrooms. We are witnessing the erasure of topics that only recently represented progress toward inclusion.”

According to PEN America, Texas—where the state legislature is dominated by Republicans—leads the country with the most documented book bans at 713. Pennsylvania ranks second with 456 bans, followed by Florida with 204.

“A probing look at the surge in book bans across the country exposes an alarming pattern of mounting restrictions targeting specific stories and ideas and the widespread abandonment of established procedures aimed to safeguard the First Amendment in public education,” said Suzanne Nossel, PEN America’s CEO.

“By short-circuiting rights-protective review processes,” Nossel added, “these bans raise serious concerns in terms of constitutionality, and represent an affront to the role of our public schools as vital training grounds for democratic citizenship that instill a commitment to freedom of speech and thought.”

PEN’s report also raises concern over state legislators’ increasing introduction and approval of “educational gag orders to censor teachers, proposals to track and monitor teachers, and mechanisms to facilitate book banning in school districts.”

The group notes that 175 educational gag order bills have been introduced in 40 U.S. states and 15 such measures have become law in 13 states.

“Parents and community members deserve a voice in shaping what is taught in our schools,” Nossel said Thursday. “But the embrace of book bans as a weapon to ward off narratives that are seen as threatening represents a troubling retreat from America’s historic commitment to the First Amendment rights of students.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Source: Common Dreams

Musk Goes Viral For Tweeting 3 Hilarious Words After Becoming Twitter’s Largest Shareholder

Martin Walsh
April 4, 2022

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is having some fun after he bought a 9.2% stake in Twitter, making him the largest shareholder of the left-leaning social media platform.

“Musk owns 73.5 million Twitter shares, valuing his passive stake in the company at up to $2.9 billion based on the stock’s Friday close. The shares are held by the Elon Musk Revocable Trust,” Newsmax reported.

“Musk, a prolific user of Twitter, has over 80 million followers on the site since joining in 2009 and has used the platform to make several announcements, including teasing a go-private deal for Tesla that landed him in regulatory scrutiny. He, however, has been critical of the social media platform and its policies of late and has said the company is undermining democracy by failing to adhere to free speech principles,” the report added.

Soon after the news on Monday went viral on social media, Musk tweeted: “oh hi lol.”

Many social media users reacted to the news, with Republicans supporting the move and others not too happy about it.

The move comes after Musk put up a poll asking his followers if they believed that Twitter did a good job of adhering to free speech principles.

“Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” the 50-year-old asked. “The consequences of this poll will be important. Please vote carefully.”

“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done?” he asked, following up, “Is a new platform needed?”

Over 2 million people voted in Musk’s poll, which found that 70% of users said they did not think Twitter was protecting free speech principles and rights.

Google Says They Will Demonetize Websites Which Report “Ukraine is Attacking its Own Citizens”

Jim Hoft
April 2, 2022

Google censored President Trump for years pushing hit pieces on the 45th President to the top of their search results. Google frequently censored top conservative websites like The Gateway Pundit and news broke that Google-YouTube censored and removed over a million videos on Covid-19.

Last August, Google demonetized The Gateway Pundit from their ad network. The Gateway Pundit is one of the top 200 websites in America today, according to Alexa ranking.

“Our goal is to help enable a free and open internet by giving publishers the ability to monetize their content. We do this by maintaining a clean and safe ad network that is part of a healthy digital advertising and publisher ecosystem,” said Google in their email to The Gateway Pundit.

Now, the far-left company warned more publishers that they will demonetize any websites that “imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim-blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.”

Google also indicated that it may also demonetize for other reasons including talking about Nazi aspects of Azov Battalion.

One article titled “Winning ‘hearts’ and PR war, but Ukraine has a “Nazi” problem that NATO and USA do not talk about” published in OpIndia was demonetized.

“The article doesn’t blame the people of Ukraine or justify the war in Ukraine in any way, but it just talks about some of the uncomfortable aspects of the conflict that many other people have also been pointing out i.e. presence of neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s establishment. Azov Battalion is one such element.

The war in Ukraine has also brought out how the big tech and social media companies could align themselves in international conflict and act as supernational entities.”

Social Media Freedom Foundation Sues Government Under 5th Amendment – May Impact Tech Giant’s Section 230 Benefits

Guest post by Facebook whistleblower Ryan Hartwif

We live in perilous times for freedom of speech, and we’re beginning to see the unchecked power of technology companies as they flex their muscle throughout the Ukraine conflict. Oddly, Facebook has decided to allow praise of a neo-nazi group in Ukraine, a local militia called the Azov Battalion. As Sam Biddle from The Intercept writes, “What happens when a group you’ve deemed too dangerous to freely discuss is defending its country against a full-scale assault?”

This issue of militias being put on Facebook’s Dangerous Organizations list also affects us in the United States, since we know hundreds of state militias in the United States have also been put on this list. So not only is Facebook involved in foreign policy, they are heavily involved in regulating state-based militia organizations. I discuss Facebook’s policy on nationalism and militia groups in chapter 7 of my book, titled Behind The Mask of Facebook: A Whistleblower’s Shocking Story of Big Tech Bias and Censorship.

Despite pushback against Facebook and tech titans, citizens and even foreign governments are powerless against tech companies’ wave of propaganda and influence in elections.

I’ve done my best to bring to light some of Facebook’s corruption, but little did I imagine myself four years ago being so involved in lawsuits and criminal referrals against Big Tech. I started as a content moderator for Facebook in March of 2018, and went public in 2020 with Project Veritas, after filming with a hidden camera for 9 months and exposing Facebook’s bias against conservatives and influence in the 2020 election.

Since then, I have contributed to a criminal referral to the DOJ for Mark Zuckerberg, helped organize a lawsuit against Youtube, spearheaded by Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies, and I’m currently working with the Social Media Freedom Foundation and their constitutional challenge against section 230.

The Social Media Freedom Foundation, a 501c3 founded by Jason Fyk, has a unique legal approach to section 230. Since Fyk’s personal case against Facebook went to the Supreme Court, he has standing to sue the government, which he is doing under the 5th amendment, for depriving him of liberty and property. Fyk’s original case against Facebook, explained succinctly in this March 2022 interview with NTD News, is that Facebook sold his page to another entity because they were paying more in advertising than Fyk. Jason Fyk’s initial lawsuit against Facebook from 2018 can be found here. The new constitutional challenge against section 230 argues the following:

The Social Media Freedom Foundation (“SMFF”)  non-profit charity organization (in conjunction with Fyk), challenges the constitutionality of the CDA’s delegation of regulatory authority that permits the discretionary restrictive actions of a commercial private entity. This discretionary enforcement resulted in the advancement of anti-competitive animus against Fyk (and many other users like Fyk), an animus that cannot, by definition, meet the qualification of “Good Samaritan” to enjoy the entitlement of complete immunity for any and all liability for any malfeasance or tortious conduct. Regulation, penalization, or deprivation in any form, carried out by an authorized government agent (i.e., whether private or public) “to fill up the details” (i.e., fill in the quasi-legislative rules) at the directive of Congress, must afford due process and free speech of the entity or person being regulated. The SMFF and Fyk lodges this facial and as-applied constitutional challenge of Section 230, with the law being glaringly violative of the constitutional doctrines and/or statutory canons cited above.

Ryan Hartwig is an officer of the Social Media Freedom Foundation